"I hate draws. I think it's such a waste of everybody's time and energy. (An overtime round is) something that I would definitely explore."

-- Oh, those pesky decisions. After two high profile fights this year, Frankie Edgar vs. Gray Maynard and B.J. Penn vs. Jon Fitch, ended in controversial, and highly unsatisfying, draws, fans have been left wanting. After all, there has to be a better way to decide a clear winner in bouts that have a championship on the line or are booked to determine the number one contender. So, in typical UFC fashion, the man himself, Dana White, fielded a question about this very matter on the web series "The Aftermath" and made the comment above: that he's not at all opposed to an overtime round if that's what is necessarily to do away with draws once and for all. But is there any way this actually has a chance at being implemented? Would commissions honestly allow a five-round war to go to a sixth sudden death style round, just for the sake of clarity? It's not like promotions don't have the option of setting up a rematch, this being exactly what they did in the case of both Edgar vs. Maynard and Penn vs. Fitch. So which do you prefer, Maniacs? Sudden death or another three rounds at a later date?

__________________
It is because you chose to get on the mat that makes you the winner. Think about how many people are not on that mat right now. - Luis Sucuri Togno

But I also like the idea of the judges cards being announced between rounds!!!

I love the overtime idea, but I disagree with the scores between rounds idea. If the fighters know that they have the fight won already on the cards then they are gonna stall like ando. It would push the one losing to fight harder. I wasn't them both to think they may be losing on the cards to push the action.

I'd be in favor of overtime for a 3 rounder, as there tend to be a lot more draws as opposed to the 5 rounders. I say if two guys are even enough to draw after 5 rounds, they might as well get the opportunity to do another 5.

I like OT.
Showing the score between rounds will just get the judges pelted with stuff while the fight's still going on, which will distract them from the fight they need to be watching to continue scoring it.

-- Oh, those pesky decisions. After two high profile fights this year, Frankie Edgar vs. Gray Maynard and B.J. Penn vs. Jon Fitch, ended in controversial, and highly unsatisfying, draws, fans have been left wanting. After all, there has to be a better way to decide a clear winner in bouts that have a championship on the line or are booked to determine the number one contender. So, in typical UFC fashion, the man himself, Dana White, fielded a question about this very matter on the web series "The Aftermath" and made the comment above: that he's not at all opposed to an overtime round if that's what is necessarily to do away with draws once and for all. But is there any way this actually has a chance at being implemented? Would commissions honestly allow a five-round war to go to a sixth sudden death style round, just for the sake of clarity? It's not like promotions don't have the option of setting up a rematch, this being exactly what they did in the case of both Edgar vs. Maynard and Penn vs. Fitch. So which do you prefer, Maniacs? Sudden death or another three rounds at a later date?

At Title Level its a missnomer.

You have to beat the Champion to be the Champion...in a Title Match if you dont get your arm raised...as a contender, you have ultimately failed regardless of being technically even with the Champion...Even is not good enough. Granting another round simply favours the challenger...and they already have two extra rounds at championship level!

If it was close, then a rematch...but Maynard/Edgar was not close...he should fight someone else and then have a rematch...Penn and Fitch I cant really remember

Now an overtime round in a three round, non title match, is a great ideal. Even for contendership matches, and will hopefully avoid bum decisions, by letting judges not be afraid to score draws and give the athletes the knowledge that everything hinges on the one final round.

In the old bare knuckle, a round was won by the first man to throw or drop his opponent. I think this kind of ‘sudden death’ round could be very dramatic, would not unduly favor a grappler or striker, and might provide a quick decision.

You have to beat the Champion to be the Champion...in a Title Match if you dont get your arm raised...as a contender, you have ultimately failed regardless of being technically even with the Champion...Even is not good enough. Granting another round simply favours the challenger...and they already have two extra rounds at championship level!

If it was close, then a rematch...but Maynard/Edgar was not close...he should fight someone else and then have a rematch...Penn and Fitch I cant really remember

Now an overtime round in a three round, non title match, is a great ideal. Even for contendership matches, and will hopefully avoid bum decisions, by letting judges not be afraid to score draws and give the athletes the knowledge that everything hinges on the one final round.

Dave, you have to stop trying to make up ways to enforce your preferences on reality. We all know that you want Pettis to win the LW title, so therefore anything delaying this is evil and must be abolished. You have to accept the truth of the situation: a draw is a draw, not a "kind of actually when you think of it my way" loss.

That would be awesome if they added the tie breaker round, but just in the none title fights and the contender matches. The title fights h
ave more than enough rounds in my opinion.

I think if they show the score cards between rounds it would really take away from the adrenaline one gets when watching the fights. I personally love being on the edge of my seat and that's why I love this sport.

I’m not sure what adding a round would accomplish, if there is no clear winner after three or five rounds, how would four or six be different?

If they are going to add overtime, it should be a ‘get it done or go home’ format, with a specific standard for victory or defeat. The whole point would be to settle the matter, allowing more of the same would just be a waste of five more minutes.